Hi --

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Akinori MUSHA wrote:

> At Tue, 3 Jun 2008 18:03:23 +0900,
> David A. Black wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Akinori MUSHA wrote:
>>
>>> At Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:39:10 +0900,
>>> I wrote:
>>>> Sounds reasonable, considering in addition that Array#map and
>>>> Array#select supports subclasses.
>>>
>>> Turns out it was wrong..  I'll back out the change.
>>
>> I believe you but I'm curious what you decided was wrong about it. Was
>> it that it would make Set the only class that didn't #map back to an
>> array? (On reflection I probably agree that having exactly one such
>> class is worse than having none.)
>
> It was my assumption that was wrong.  I thought Array#collect returns
> an object of the receiver's class so I changed it without asking, but
> I realized it didn't.  So I reverted the change and decided to wait
> for the discussion to reach conclusions.  That's all.  Let's keep the
> discussion.

OK -- thanks, that makes sense.


David

-- 
Rails training from David A. Black and Ruby Power and Light:
   INTRO TO RAILS         June 9-12            Berlin
   ADVANCING WITH RAILS   June 16-19           Berlin
See http://www.rubypal.com for details and updates!